Hi Lead Infotech (PVT.)Limited Through Its Director Sunil Kumar vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Held

The Court did not definitively rule on the validity of the GST imposition. Instead, it directed the petitioner to file fresh objections before the Chief Engineer, Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, within two weeks. The Chief Engineer was mandated to consider and decide these objections, including the specific issue of GST imposition on the petitioner's self-procured supplies, within two months, and in any case, by August 15, 2023. The Court reasoned that the Chief Engineer is the appropriate authority to address such grievances under Clause 4.6 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005. The ratio decidendi is that statutory remedies available for resolving disputes regarding estimates and charges under the Electricity Supply Code must be exhausted before approaching the High Court. The petition was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, Hi Lead Infotech (Pvt.) Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an estimate prepared by the Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Distribution Division-III, Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited. This estimate was prepared on the instructions of the Superintendent Engineer, who had sanctioned the load. The petitioner argued that the estimate, dated 22.12.2022, incorrectly included Goods and Services Tax (GST) on supplies purchased by the petitioner themselves. The petitioner had previously filed an objection before the Chief Engineer, Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, though this was not on record. The writ petition sought relief against the estimate and the imposition of GST.

Key Issues

1. Whether the estimate prepared by the Executive Engineer, including the imposition of GST on supplies purchased by the petitioner, is valid under Clause 4.6 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the imposition of GST in the estimate was erroneous, particularly on supplies that the petitioner had procured independently. They contended that the estimate should not include such charges. Respondent's Contention: The respondents, represented by the State and the electricity distribution company, did not explicitly record arguments against the petitioner's specific challenge to the GST imposition. However, the context implies that the estimate was prepared under the authority of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005.